Kyle

Kyle v. Duncan

Good Law
16 F. App'x 678
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitAugust 1, 2001No. 00-55670California367 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

MEMORANDUM ***

Bennie Kyle (“Kyle”), appeals the district court’s order denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition for writ of habeas corpus as untimely. Because Kyle’s petition was filed after the effective date of the Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (“AEDPA”), the provisions of that Act apply to his case. See Patterson v. Stewart, 251 F.3d 1243, 1245 (9th Cir.2001). AEDPA imposes a one-year statute of limitations on habeas corpus petitions filed by state prisoners in federal court. See 28 U.S.C. § 2244 (d)(1). State prisoners, like Kyle, whose convictions became final prior to AEDPA’s enactment, have a one-year *679 grace period in which to file their petitions in federal court. See Patterson at 1245 . We review the district court’s dismissal of Kyle’s petition de novo. See id.

Pursuant to § 2244(d) of AEDPA, Kyle’s petition was untimely. However, Kyle claims that he is actually innocent and that a showing of actual innocence is an exception to the limitations period. Assuming, without deciding, that an actual innocence exception exists, Kyle has not made the requisite showing. See Carriger v. Stewart, 132 F.3d 463, 478 (9th Cir.1997) (en banc). Kyle’s bare…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.